Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-view-transitions-2] Creating 'classes' of transition groups (#8319)

> What's the benefit of this vs `::view-transition-group(*).box`?

I'm personally partial to keeping the class name inside the brackets like `::view-transition-group(.box)`. The justification is as follows:
  * It becomes clear that the class is associated with that pseudo element. So one must write `::view-transition-group(*.box)` or `::view-transition-group(.box)`. By contrast, one may think that `::view-transition-group(*).box` may be written as `.box`, and be surprised that this is not the case -- we need to have a vt pseudo name for the class syntax to make sense.
  * It is arguably less surprising that class names inside the brackets may be serialized from the previous page in the cross-document transitions case. We would already have this surprise in same document as well, since the classes from the "previous" state would still apply to the `::view-transition-old` pseudos among others. Having the class inside is may be less confusing

If we also make the `view-transition-name` a shorthand for something like `view-transition-id` an `view-transition-class` in some syntax, then we can support something like `::view-transition-group(#foo.bar)` syntax where the thing inside the bracket is really like a traditional selector dealing with (view-transition) ids and (view-transition) classes. Not sure if it's a good or a bad thing, but it's familiar

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by vmpstr
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8319#issuecomment-1843224524 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2023 16:17:04 UTC